• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Scam of the MBTI Trance

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
MBTI is like a Big Five test without the neuroticism dimension. That's really the only interesting thing about it. The theory behind it is utter, laughable crap, just like the theories of Freud.

The Five Factor Model has by far the most support. There really is no competition, and the NEO-PI-R is the best and most reliable personality test out there. When I studied personality psychology, MBTI was never mentioned, and there was no research findings referenced in the book that used MBTI, while there were tons of studies which had used the Five Factor Model.

You cannot really use MBTI in research and expect to be taken serisouly, the golden standard is the Five Factor Model...
The MBTI's attempt to keep up is the Type Differentiation Indicator, which adds the Comfort-Discomfort dimension as the fifth factor. But this seems to be only a specialty instrument (like in psych wards or something).

In 1984 two jungian analysts--Singer and Loomis-- began developing an alternative to MBTI, called the S-L TDI.
The main reasons were:

1) The profiles were not consistent with the characteristics of many individuals.
2) Criticisms of MBTI

In a nutshell, Singer and Loomis determined the cause:
The oppositional pairs and the forced-choice test format.

MBTI claims but never actually proves an ENTJ's order of 8 functions are:

Te
Ni
Se
Fi
Ti
Ne
Si
Fe

MBTI doesn't allow for even the possibility of any other order.
If one is seeking the truth, we don't do so by playing a rigged game.

To validate (or invalidate) is easy:
Test each function independently.
If you claim the function order of a particular type is 12345678,
then create a system to check it.

Singer and Loomis did.

They used a completely different test format: no forced-choice questions.
Instead, they used a Likert scaled format: 20 situations, with 8 possible responses.
Each response correlates with the two orientations ( extraverted or introverted), and 4 functions.
The individual would rank how often they would respond a certain way,
in each of the proposed scenarios. 1= never, leading up to 5=always.

By doing so, they actually proved Jung's own assumption of bi-polarity,
did not hold up for all, but did hold up for some.

Data Source:
Singer-Loomis TDI : The Next Generation of Psychological Type Instrument
S. Dugan and K.Wilson
Haskayne School of Business
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
July 3, 2002.

I'd like to try that! It doesn't seem to be offered online anywhere, though I did find a site selling the reports and literature.

Otherwise, the closest thing to this in concept would be Nardi's cognitive process tests. I wonder if he got the idea or drew from them.
 

FC3S

New member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
371
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
666
Do you know what I use MBTI for? Part of my own research. Damn the functions to hell. Most of the people take an online quiz. A certain grouping has certain traits in common (but not always) through similar answers to the same questions, and will yield similar behaviors.

Those behaviors are the only credible thing in MBTI and it is still dodgy.
 

Splittet

Wannabe genius
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
632
MBTI Type
INTJ
The MBTI's attempt to keep up is the Type Differentiation Indicator, which adds the Comfort-Discomfort dimension as the fifth factor. But this seems to be only a specialty instrument (like in psych wards or something).

But it's still only a bad version of Big Five. It's a bastard child, based on very dodgy methods. The reliability and validity won't be close to NEO-PI-R. The methods used to arrive at the Five Factor Model are just incredibly elegant and completely data driven...
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
Yes, MBTI is self validating.

And that is the problem with delusions - they are self validating.

Thank you Victor, a man who in one of his posts discounted logic as an ineffective means to solving problems, for pointing out my delusions.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Thank you Victor, a man who in one of his posts discounted logic as an ineffective means to solving problems, for pointing out my delusions.

Logic without creativity is impotent.

While logic with creativity is fertile.
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I am curious what Victor's personal issue with MBTI is. I mean to spend so much of his time here campaigning against it tells us he has a deeper issue with it than someone who merely thinks it is baloney. So Victor. we're you turned down for a job because someone gave you the MBTI and you answered it honestly and they said ugh INF...no thanks? :huh:

I agree with the concern over it being used to screen people in hiring but then I am concerned about any personality test (or God forbid DNA, brain scan etc) being used to screen people in hiring. It's like judging people guilty before they are allowed to prove themselves.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I am curious what Victor's personal issue with MBTI is. I mean to spend so much of his time here campaigning against it tells us he has a deeper issue with it than someone who merely thinks it is baloney. So Victor. we're you turned down for a job because someone gave you the MBTI and you answered it honestly and they said ugh INFP...no thanks? :huh:

It's true, Heart, I proposed to a beautiful women who turned her nose up at me because I was an INFP.

I never forgave her and devote my time to wreaking havoc on MBTI.

And I can tell you, Heart, this unnamed beauty is reading this right now.

But her name shall never pass my lips.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
It's true, Heart, I proposed to a beautiful women who turned her nose up at me because I was an INFP.

I never forgave her and devote my time to wreaking havoc on MBTI.

And I can tell you, Heart, this unnamed beauty is reading this right now.

But her name shall never pass my lips.

You told me you never took a test,
and someone "assigned" you that type.
Now what is real, and what is bullshit?

How can anyone know you are really INFP?
And even if you were, why would you propose to such a bigot?

Find a woman with an actual brain, Victor.
Women with brains don't decide who to marry,
using 4 letters.
 
G

garbage

Guest
It's not just a tool, it's supposed to be science, and it's clearly not very good science.

Is it possible to disregard what it's "supposed" to be and instead just embrace it as a tool wherever it would be useful to do so? Because that's how a lot of people tend to approach MBTI.

I've never heard MBTI discussed in-depth in psychology courses, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has no use, does it?
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
You told me you never took a test,
and someone "assigned" you that type.
Now what is real, and what is bullshit?

How can anyone know you are really INFP?
And even if you were, why would you propose to such a bigot?

Find a woman with an actual brain, Victor.
Women with brains don't decide who to marry,
using 4 letters.

Don't feel too bad for Victor. He has his pony to keep him company but I have forgotten the pony's name.
 

Splittet

Wannabe genius
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
632
MBTI Type
INTJ
Is it possible to disregard what it's "supposed" to be and instead just embrace it as a tool wherever it would be useful to do so? Because that's how a lot of people tend to approach MBTI.

I've never heard MBTI discussed in-depth in psychology courses, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has no use, does it?

But that's what science does, it tries to evaluate the degree to which the theory is useful, makes accurate predictions and so on. And MBTI doesn't do very well, by scientific standards it's not very useful. And why use it at all, when Big Five is such a superior alternative? MBTI offers absolutely nothing Big Five does not... It tries to offer more, but those parts have no validity.
 
G

garbage

Guest
But that's what science does, it tries to evaluate the degree to which the theory is useful, makes accurate predictions and so on. And MBTI doesn't do very well, by scientific standards it's not very useful.

Ah. Yeah. This makes a lot of sense.

I'd say that, if a better alternative to typing didn't exist, then MBTI could still be useful. However...

And why use it at all, when Big Five is such a superior alternative? MBTI offers absolutely nothing Big Five does not... It tries to offer more, but those parts have no validity.

...as fan of the Big Five myself, I actually agree with this for the most part. I'd never even thought of the Big Five in the same terms as MBTI, but the Big Five does seem to be better at what MBTI tries to do.

To MBTI's credit, thinking in terms of the cognitive functions can be useful for self-improvement purposes. Tying them to a personality type or trying to extrapolate anything about a person from them? Not so much.
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
You told me you never took a test,
and someone "assigned" you that type.
Now what is real, and what is bullshit?

How can anyone know you are really INFP?

Are you saying there is no way to tell which type someone is unless they take a test?

If so, I strongly disagree.

And even if you were, why would you propose to such a bigot?

Find a woman with an actual brain, Victor.
Women with brains don't decide who to marry,
using 4 letters.

Sometimes women with brains give "brainless" reasons for rejections to avoid disclosing the real reason.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You are maybe of the opinion that psychology is not a science? MBTI is a personality psychology theory, and can be evaluated by scientific standards, and it doesn't fare very well.

Umm, no, I didn't say that psychology is not a science. I said that MBTI is not a science.

It has psychological implications but it isn't scientific. It can't be evaluated scientifically any more than philosophy can.

The types aren't objectively defined so evaluation of a person's type is ultimately subjective.

The closest it can come to objectivity is popular opinion among people who've studied it a lot. It's like the critical art world; nobody can really prove anything because it's inherently subjective, but you can get a reasonably good guess from inductive reasoning.

You can't empirically prove that Citizen Kane is a good film, but that doesn't invalidate the entire field of film critique.

The form of MBTI that they teach in psychology courses is presented as only one such possible perspective; it's not taught as scientific fact and they make no pretense that it is.

Does this mean MBTI shouldn't be used in making important decisions like hiring employees? Absolutely! The people who try to use it for objective purposes like this are definitely misapplying it.

The only people who hold MBTI to a scientific standard are the ones who are insistent on proving that it's useless. They point to the unsubstantiated Jungian function theory upon which it was originally based, and then refuse to acknowledge any later developments upon the system. No one in psychology takes Jung that seriously, but MBTI as a four-independent-variable behavioral trend categorization system still has definite practical uses in terms of perspective over time.

As I said earlier, it's like philosophy. No one *ever* proves anything in philosophy; their arguments are never "correct" or "incorrect", only "strong" or "weak."

Until you stop looking for "correct/incorrect" in MBTI--and I know Te hates doing this--you won't get it.

This is the very definition of :strawman:
 

Splittet

Wannabe genius
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
632
MBTI Type
INTJ
Umm, no, I didn't say that psychology is not a science. I said that MBTI is not a science.

It has psychological implications but it isn't scientific. It can't be evaluated scientifically any more than philosophy can.

The types aren't objectively defined so evaluation of a person's type is ultimately subjective.

The closest it can come to objectivity is popular opinion among people who've studied it a lot. It's like the critical art world; nobody can really prove anything because it's inherently subjective, but you can get a reasonably good guess from inductive reasoning.

You can't empirically prove that Citizen Kane is a good film, but that doesn't invalidate the entire field of film critique.

The form of MBTI that they teach in psychology courses is presented as only one such possible perspective; it's not taught as scientific fact and they make no pretense that it is.

Does this mean MBTI shouldn't be used in making important decisions like hiring employees? Absolutely! The people who try to use it for objective purposes like this are definitely misapplying it.

The only people who hold MBTI to a scientific standard are the ones who are insistent on proving that it's useless. They point to the unsubstantiated Jungian function theory upon which it was originally based, and then refuse to acknowledge any later developments upon the system. No one in psychology takes Jung that seriously, but MBTI as a four-independent-variable behavioral trend categorization system still has definite practical uses in terms of perspective over time.

As I said earlier, it's like philosophy. No one *ever* proves anything in philosophy; their arguments are never "correct" or "incorrect", only "strong" or "weak."

Until you stop looking for "correct/incorrect" in MBTI--and I know Te hates doing this--you won't get it.

This is the very definition of :strawman:

You know, MBTI makes a lot of claims about the human mind, many of which are testable. The fact that the theory is not clearly defining functions and so on, just means that it is a hard to test, bad pseudoscience-like theory. Jungian functions are simply bullshit, the brain doesn't work that way. The theory is beyond laughable. Any neuroscientist would tell you. If it has no scientific validity, then it simply has no objective usefulness, and any perceived usefulness will be false, just like in the case of astrology. Any perceived usefulness is due to confirmation bias.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
You know, MBTI makes a lot of claims about the human mind, many of which are testable. The fact that the theory is not clearly defining functions and so on, just means that it is a hard to test, bad pseudoscience-like theory. Jungian functions are simply bullshit, the brain doesn't work that way. The theory is beyond laughable. Any neuroscientist would tell you. If it has no scientific validity, then it simply has no objective usefulness, and any perceived usefulness will be false, just like in the case of astrology. Any perceived usefulness is due to confirmation bias.

I suppose we have differing definitions of usefulness.

For me, anything that allows me to look at something from a different perspective and potentially understand it a little bit better is useful.

And arbitrarily categorizing people into a logical intuitive system has helped me learn how to better appreciate the needs and perspectives of others and improve my overall personal relations.

I agree that the functions are mostly garbage.

But it's a mistake to say that nothing without scientific validity is useful, you Te-nut, you.

MBTI as interpreted by reasonable people is subjective, and you can't expect objective measurements from a subjective system. The "test" only gives you a rough idea; since the 16 archetypes are just arbitrary constructs, most people fit one better than the others.

I don't suppose it means anything to you that INTJs are comparatively likely to mistake perspective for methodology, as you are doing now, does it?

If you're working within a system where making scheduled, objectively measureable progress is a priority, you shouldn't look to subjective systems like MBTI. MBTI is purely philosophic in nature--the only point is looking at things through different lenses, not making scientific progress.

I get a lot of this "zomg it's not PROVEN!!!" from people, but those people are making an assumption that I take everything MBTI says on faith and apply it automatically to every person in a type.

I don't; I just formed a hypothetical ideal of each of 16 arbitrarily defined personality archetypes and then categorized everyone I know into whichever they fit most closely--some are borderline between two or more types. It's less useful for them...but most people's behavior shows enough general patterns that it's somewhat useful, anyway.

Do I base all of my personal interaction decisions on it? No, of course not--but it does help me to collect my thoughts and direct them toward how best to get along with someone, and that's worth it to me.

It's not a methodology; it's just an arbitrary grouping. Typology is far more like an art form than a science, anyway.

Look, NTJs...imagine that you're trying to guess the next card that will be dealt from a deck. If I tell you for certain that it is not a spade, you still don't have any objectively verifiable data about what card is coming, but you do know a little bit more than you did before. It's a piece of a puzzle that makes you guess correctly just a little bit more often--NOT consistently by any means, just more often than you otherwise would have.

To Te, that information doesn't help us in any meaningful way because it can't be applied to any external organizational task with any degree of specificity. But to Ne+Ti, it's a playground--we love to observe external patterns and place everything into an internal framework, just for the joy of completing the puzzle.

It rounds out our outlook on life, which may not sound like a worthwhile goal to you. Most NTJs wouldn't get a philosophy degree and it's plain to see why--but try to step out of the "Te bubble" for a minute?

Do you think that INTJ descriptions fit you better than those of other types?
 

Splittet

Wannabe genius
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
632
MBTI Type
INTJ
I suppose we have differing definitions of usefulness.

For me, anything that allows me to look at something from a different perspective and potentially understand it a little bit better is useful.

And arbitrarily categorizing people into a logical intuitive system has helped me learn how to better appreciate the needs and perspectives of others and improve my overall personal relations.

I agree that the functions are mostly garbage.

But it's a mistake to say that nothing without scientific validity is useful, you Te-nut, you.

MBTI as interpreted by reasonable people is subjective, and you can't expect objective measurements from a subjective system. The "test" only gives you a rough idea; since the 16 archetypes are just arbitrary constructs, most people fit one better than the others.

I don't suppose it means anything to you that INTJs are comparatively likely to mistake perspective for methodology, as you are doing now, does it?

If you're working within a system where making scheduled, objectively measureable progress is a priority, you shouldn't look to subjective systems like MBTI. MBTI is purely philosophic in nature--the only point is looking at things through different lenses, not making scientific progress.

I get a lot of this "zomg it's not PROVEN!!!" from people, but those people are making an assumption that I take everything MBTI says on faith and apply it automatically to every person in a type.

I don't; I just formed a hypothetical ideal of each of 16 arbitrarily defined personality archetypes and then categorized everyone I know into whichever they fit most closely--some are borderline between two or more types. It's less useful for them...but most people's behavior shows enough general patterns that it's somewhat useful, anyway.

Do I base all of my personal interaction decisions on it? No, of course not--but it does help me to collect my thoughts and direct them toward how best to get along with someone, and that's worth it to me.

It's not a methodology; it's just an arbitrary grouping. Typology is far more like an art form than a science, anyway.

Look, NTJs...imagine that you're trying to guess the next card that will be dealt from a deck. If I tell you for certain that it is not a spade, you still don't have any objectively verifiable data about what card is coming, but you do know a little bit more than you did before. It's a piece of a puzzle that makes you guess correctly just a little bit more often--NOT consistently by any means, just more often than you otherwise would have.

To Te, that information doesn't help us in any meaningful way because it can't be applied to any external organizational task with any degree of specificity. But to Ne+Ti, it's a playground--we love to observe external patterns and place everything into an internal framework, just for the joy of completing the puzzle.

It rounds out our outlook on life, which may not sound like a worthwhile goal to you. Most NTJs wouldn't get a philosophy degree and it's plain to see why--but try to step out of the "Te bubble" for a minute?

Do you think that INTJ descriptions fit you better than those of other types?

I have explained that the only potential validity of MBTI, is to view it as a weak form of Big Five. There are actual differences between different types, it's just that Big Five is much better at getting at those fundamental differences. Therefore there is no reason to use MBTI over Big Five.

MBTI is not a philosophy, its aim is to explain and describe personality differences, and that sounds like a personality psychological theory to me. It's terribly bad however, because it's so imprecise, making it very hard, but not impossible, to test. The same can be said for psychoanalysis.

What part of philosophy is MBTI supposed to fit? Metaphysics? Epistemology? Ethics? Political philosophy? Logic? Give me a break!
 

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
What part of philosophy is MBTI supposed to fit? Metaphysics? Epistemology? Ethics? Political philosophy? Logic?

Anecdotal evidence, hasty generalisation & confirmation bias. The realm of the pub know-it-all.

This might be relevant.

The NonSequitur
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Sometimes women with brains give "brainless" reasons for rejections to avoid disclosing the real reason.

Very much the truth.

Victor, sorry for your loss but perhaps it is time to move on. Whether MBTI is seen as valid in your eyes or not, she is the one who took the theory to such an extreme. If she chooses to live her life that way, she is obviously not a perfect match for the person I seem to think you are.

That being said, I think MBTI has been an extremely valuable tool, fallible or not.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I have explained that the only potential validity of MBTI, is to view it as a weak form of Big Five. There are actual differences between different types, it's just that Big Five is much better at getting at those fundamental differences. Therefore there is no reason to use MBTI over Big Five.

MBTI is not a philosophy, its aim is to explain and describe personality differences, and that sounds like a personality psychological theory to me. It's terribly bad however, because it's so imprecise, making it very hard, but not impossible, to test. The same can be said for psychoanalysis.

What part of philosophy is MBTI supposed to fit? Metaphysics? Epistemology? Ethics? Political philosophy? Logic? Give me a break!


Man, what is it with Te doms that makes this concept SO difficult?

It is not supposed to be testable any more than you can test any other subjective form of thought. The fact that you can invent a test to test it for something it doesn't even purport to do is entirely irrelevant.

It doesn't fit into an area of philosophy because I didn't say it was philosophy--I said it was SIMILAR to philosophy in that it's inherently subjective and therefore we shouldn't expect scientific proof from it.

"It sounds like a psychology theory to me"? Well, it's not. Anyone claiming that it is is incorrect/lying. Can you get over that now?

Once AGAIN, it's like art critique. You can't prove or disprove any of it, because none of it is objectively verifiable. For the love of God, it doesn't function within deductive reasoning and nobody thinks it does, so quit setting up straw men and knocking them down just to make yourselves feel all tingly inside.

Are NTJs really this bad at Ne and Ti? I mean seriously guys, how can you all be this obtuse? It's not a difficult concept. Much like philosophy, (but not actually an area of philosophy, thanks for the words in my mouth) it doesn't have to apply to a measureable goal to have perceptual uses.

Would you agree with the following four statements?

1) Some people prefer spending time alone more often than time with others, and vice versa.
2) Some people prefer to trust concrete sensory information over abstract/hypothetical information, and vice versa.
3) Some people prefer to trust impersonal analysis over the personal/subjective side of things, and vice versa.
4) Some people prefer to have plans/schedules/routines, while others prefer to keep options open and avoid having things set in stone.

These four observations are obvious simply from viewing the world around us.

How, exactly, can you show scientifically that this is not true?

All we're doing with MBTI is arbitrarily placing people into categories based on these very generalized preferences. Then we discuss, SUBJECTIVELY, which archetypes we think real people most closely resemble.

Can we ever prove any of these type guesses?

NO.

Do we expect scientific precision from such a vague concept with such a huge margin of error?

NO.

Does MBTI have scientific applications?

NO.

Are you really proving anything by repeatedly holding MBTI up to a standard it was never meant to be held to?

NO, NO, and NO.
 
Top